[ad_1]
“In the opinion of the Ombudsman of the Seimas, the isolation of people in places not adapted to their needs and that do not meet the public health safety requirements provided by municipal administrations, without evaluating each case individually, that is, , without taking into account the age, sex, health status and special needs of the people, without offering an alternative to isolation (…) it was a disproportionate restrictive measure for the legitimate aim pursued by its application and could be equivalent degrading treatment prohibited by international law, ‘says the investigation report.
After investigating the legislation and the measures applied to handle the emergency during the first quarantine, the inspector found that the instructions for the forced isolation of people were more strict than those required by law.
The Ombudsman considered that the instructions for the forced isolation of people were stricter than required by law.
It also noted that the possibility of involuntary hospitalization by an individual physician presents a risk of error or abuse and that the suspension of scheduled services did not guarantee the right of individuals to the highest level of medical care.
The decision defines the provisions of the law.
On March 23, the Minister of Health, Aurelijus Veryga, adopted a decision that came into effect the following day, that all people coming from abroad must be isolated in municipal facilities for 14 days. This decision was changed late the following night, when visitors were allowed to isolate themselves at home.
Subsequently, A. Veryga said that the order had been changed due to outrage, there were also reports of fights between isolated people, one person was injured with a knife.
The Ombudsman of Seimas pointed out that in the Communicable Diseases Control Law, the condition that a person returned from an affected foreign state is considered to have come into contact only entered into force on April 8, so that on March 24 said procedure could not be applied.
Furthermore, according to the Ombudsman, the law provides up to four alternatives to isolation: premises equipped by the municipalities, medical institutions, private homes or other places of residence.
“However, the decision of the Chief of Operations of March 23 (…) provided for the only place of isolation of the exposed persons, the premises provided by the municipal administrations,” the report reads.
In accordance with the instructions of the Ministry of Health, the decision to apply such a procedure was made due to the high flow of arrivals and reports of violations of the isolation of arrivals.
However, in the opinion of the Ombudsman’s Office, “this decision of the Chief of Operations limited the provisions of the Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Law (…) and, as pointed out by NGOs operating in the country, disproportionately restricts human rights”.
Negative experiences experienced
The Comptroller’s Office alleges that the applicants who were contacted by him were forcibly isolated without any examination and their health was not monitored.
They also stated that they should have signed that they were aware of the mandatory isolation decision, although they were not notified of the decision itself, that there was no appeal procedure, no legal or psychological assistance, and there was no further information about their detention. “Intimidated” by reporting imminent consequences if instructions were not followed.
The report notes that in the designated premises, unknown men and women were forcibly locked in a room, and people were kept in isolation rooms and common hallways. In addition, although this had to be done urgently, epidemiologists did not carry out an assessment of the premises until the isolation of the people and an official conclusion of the National Center of Public Health on its suitability was not issued until April 2.
The ministry noted that the municipalities had not been able to adequately organize the isolation of those who had arrived, so on March 25 it was decided to allow the returnees to be isolated at their home or elsewhere.
“Due to acts of hasty adoption and possibly contrary to superior legal acts, insufficient prior preparation and lack of inter-institutional cooperation, people who return from foreign countries and who have been forcibly isolated in the premises provided by the municipal administration have suffered experiences negative and possible violations of their rights and freedoms “.
Risky forced isolation procedures
The Ombudsman also noted that the possibility of forcibly treating or isolating a person for a month during a pandemic at the discretion of a doctor poses a risk of abuse and error, as well as violating the rights and freedoms of individuals.
This decision is motivated by the fact that the work of the courts during a pandemic is more complex, that there may be a large number of requests for mandatory hospitalization, and that it can be difficult for the courts to process all of them quickly. However, according to the controller, no evidence was provided based on objective data rather than assumptions.
In addition, according to the Ombudsman’s Office, the Council of Judges stated that the restrictions imposed could not be an obstacle to the exercise of the procedural rights of the people, and that the number of cases in the courts during the quarantine had decreased, the courts they worked successfully remotely.
In light of these and other arguments, the Ombudsman concluded that the statutory power to impose involuntary treatment or isolation in the event of a pandemic by a single doctor “raises reasonable doubts about the possible abuse of doctors and the powers conferred by this provision, human error and such a risk management tool ”.
Suspension of medical services did not guarantee rights
The Seimas ombudsman also investigated the situation of suspension of scheduled medical services during the quarantine. She received a referral from a person working in the personal health care field stating that the remote consultation used was not sufficient, as an accurate diagnosis often required a physical examination.
According to applicants, even after resumption of service due to existing requirements, they were accepted less than before quarantine, and due to frequent changes in legislation, the lack of a unified pandemic brake prevented institutions from adequately planning their activities.
The control notes that the provision of medical services was suspended when 60 cases were detected per day, and in the autumn, when more than a hundred cases were detected, health services were not suspended.
Therefore, it doubts that the measures adopted “meet the criteria of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.”
“It can be concluded that during the term of the quarantine in Lithuania, the suspension of preventive inspections and preventive programs for more than one month, the postponement of planned operations and hospitalizations, (…) without guaranteeing clarity and the systematization of the legislation adopted in the field of management measures for the COVID-19 disease. The right of all people to accessible health services and to the highest possible level of health protection has not been adequately guaranteed ”, says the ombudsman.
Some restriction of rights is unavoidable during a pandemic
However, in his conclusion, the Ombudsman also states that some restriction of human rights during a pandemic is unavoidable, but that any action taken must have a clear basis in national law and be necessary and proportionate.
“Given that COVID-19 is included in the list of communicable diseases of special gravity and that the spread of a communicable disease in a country can be considered an emergency, (…) it must be concluded that the Government’s decision to declare a national emergency due to COVID-19 the pandemics caused by the disease complied with current legislation ”, says the controller.
However, it recommends that the Government ensure that the imposition of restrictions meets the highest human rights standards, that the measures are reasonable, and that they do not impose more restrictions than necessary. It is also recommended to take steps to restrict human rights, if necessary, to ensure smooth cooperation with the public and human rights experts.
It also proposes to improve the Communicable Diseases Law by protecting people from disproportionate restrictions on their rights through compulsory treatment.
The competent authorities must examine these proposals within 30 days, consult with the Office of the Ombudsman of Seimas and inform them of the measures to be taken. This report was published on November 12.
[ad_2]
